In Cairo, Egypt, on August 15, 2001, a trial is set to begin for 52 men
jailed on charges ranging from "obscene behavior" to "contempt
for religion." Some of the men could face up to eight years in prison.
Sentences of the Emergency State Security Court which will hear their case
brook no ordinary appeal.

The men were arrested in connection with a May 11, 2001 raid on a Cairo
discotheque believed to be a gathering place for homosexuals. The
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) reported on
their arrest days later in an Action Alert (see "Witch
Hunt Underway: Dozens of Men Arrested, Held Incommunicado,"). IGLHRC
and Human Rights Watch have also condemned the arrests in a joint statement
(see "Egypt:
Emergency Court Trials for Homosexual Suspects,"

The 52 men have endured persecution, and now face prison, because of their
alleged sexual orientation. Evidence suggests they may have been tortured in
detention. They have been steadily vilified in the State-directed media;
whatever possibility of a fair trial remained, given the arbitrariness of the
laws and procedures under which they were held, has been damaged beyond
repair. IGLHRC asks for URGENT letters to the Egyptian government calling for
the immediate release of the men; the dropping of all charges; and an end to
the repressive laws and extralegal practices which have enabled this travesty
of justice.

IGLHRC also endorses the call by Al-Fatihaan international organization
of Muslims who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or questioning (LGBTQ)for
an International Day of Solidarity and Mourning on August 15, 2001, as the
trial opens.

At the same time, IGLHRC does not now endorse a boycott on Egyptian goods
or on tourism to Egypt. On some occasions, forms of pressure or protest which
disproportionately affect the peoples, rather than the governments, of States
may indeed be necessary means to achieve the freedom of those peoples. In
general, however, IGLHRC believes such economic pressure should be attempted
only after other means have failed. Tourism and export industries provide
livelihoods to millions of Egyptians who may be unaware of, or actively
opposed to, the repressive policies of their government. Moreover, to imply
that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered peopleor human rights
activists as a grouprelate to Egypt primarily as outside consumers or as
tourists may inadvertently reinforce the false and dangerous belief that
sexual difference, or reliance upon rights, are influences emanating from
beyond Egypts borders. IGLHRC believes that the best way to support the men
facing trial in Egypt is for individuals and their governments to voice their
condemnation directly to Egypts leaders.

I am writing to express my outrage over the persecution of 52 men now
facing trial in Cairo for their homosexuality. As you are undoubtedly aware,
homosexuality is not expressly penalized by Egyptian law. Clearly,
however,at this has not impeded the Egyptian authorities from pursuing an
evidently trumped-up case against these men. The reputation of Egypt is at
stake. These men must be freed. It is time for these unjust proceedings to
end. These men have been jailed for over two months since their arrest on
May 11, 2001in violation of the internationally accepted protections
against arbitrary detention. There is strong evidence that police and guards
have subjected the men to torture. The sensational publicity given the case
in the State-directed mediaclearly the product of officially leaked
informationhas only served further to prejudice the possibility of their
receiving a fair trial. It has discouraged attorneys and human rights
organizations from defending these men, impeding their right to legal
counsel. The Emergency Security Court which will try them allows no appeal
to a higher tribunal  violating the express provisions of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Egypt has
ratified. And the abuse heaped upon these men for their alleged
homosexuality constitutes a denial of their dignity and equality before the
law. All the available evidence suggests that the men are being subjected to
legal reprisals for exercising their legitimate rights to freedom of
association, assembly, and expression. I urge you to see that the charges
against them are dropped and the men are freed. I urge you to eliminate the
Emergency Law of 1981 which allows trials before courts which allow no
proper appeal. I urge you to end the practice of prolonged, incommunicado
arbitrary detention. I urge you to see that both press and criminal justice
system abide by the terms of Article 23 of the Law No. 96 Concerning the
Regulation of Journalists, which bars publication of details of a trial or
investigation which might influence its outcome. I urge you to investigate
allegations of torture and ill-treatment of detainees, and punish those
found responsible. And I urge you to work for the repeal of provisionswhether
criminalizing "contempt for religion" or "obscene
behavior" or "prostitution"which can be used to penalize
persons exercising internationally recognized rights to free speech, free
assembly, free association, and freedom of thought and belief.

The present case, with its rampant accusations of "perversion,"
perverts the rule of law. Although Egypt does not expressly criminalize
homosexual acts, the 52 men are being tried under laws ordinarily used to
target religious dissent, and laws targeting prostitution. The former are an
unconscionable infringement of the rights to freedom of thought and of
expression. The latter (comparable to repressive legislation persisting in
numerous other countries) are used to eliminate the public presence of
stigmatized groups; they unacceptably restrict the rights of expression,
association, and assembly. The men face trial by a State Security Court, the
creation of an Emergency Law enacted after the 1981 assassination of President
Anwar el-Sadat; defendants cannot appeal to a higher tribunal. The
State-controlled media have sensationalized the case, making a fair trial
virtually impossible. And the States inflamed rhetoric as well as
procedural misconduct have prevented many of the accused from gaining
effective legal representation.

The governments heavy-handed handling of this case is hardly unique.
Similar crackdowns on Islamist groupsusing similar emergency proceduresare
a common occurrence in Egypt. Threatened with mounting popular discontent,
however, the government has lately moved to guard its flank, showing its
harshness toward secularist as well as fundamentalist voices. Feminists and
democratic dissidents have been recent targets. Homosexuals are simply the
latest, and perhaps the most politically convenient, scapegoats.

At least 55 men were arrested in the early hours of May 11, 2001, following
a raid by police and State Security Intelligence personnel on the Queen Boat,
a discotheque in Cairos Zamalek district. (Charges against 3 of the men
were reportedly dropped at a hearing over six weeks later.)

It is clear that the arrests were based on suspicions that homosexuals
congregated at the Queen Boat: the bar, unlike many discotheques in Cairo, did
not have a policy of admitting only men and women in couples. Police
reportedly targeted those men who were not accompanied by women. One foreign
national present stated that "People were sitting at separate tables
having beer, some dancing, when we suddenly found the place full of policemen,
arresting and beating everybody." Arriving patrons were arrested, as well
as those inside the discotheque during the raid; reportedly some persons on
the Nile embankment outside were also detained.

The arrested men, all Egyptian nationals, were taken to al-Azbakiyya police
station in Cairo. Following a hearing the next day, they were transferred to
Tora Prison on the outskirts of Cairo. Afterward, their detention was
repeatedly extended at successive hearings at two-week intervals. (One of the
men was released for reasons of health on May 23, but charges against him
apparently remain pending.)

Authorities at first held the arrestees virtually incommunicado. Visits
from family members were severely restricted, and lawyers were not allowed
access to the prisoners. When the men were finally allowed counsel at their
May 23 hearing, several stated they had been tortured. Reports from lawyers
indicate that the men were subjected to beatings and ill-treatment from their
first incarceration in the police lockup, apparently in order to force them to
confess to homosexual practices. An Egyptian source reports:

"When the lawyers met the prisoners, they learned that they were
continually harassed in prison. Virtually all of them said that the prison
authorities seemed to be encouraging other prisoners to harass them because
they were faggots and at least one of the prisoners was punished with
solitary confinement after he beat up his attackers.

"The lawyers also found out that in the first investigation, many told
the prosecutors that they had been tortured and showed the prosecutor the
marks. Although the prosecutor had recommended at the time that they be
examined by the coroner, nothing happened and they were held incommunicado
till the marks faded."

Visitors have reported that whippings and electroshocks may have been
inflicted on the prisoners. The detainees were also subjected to forensic
examinations in order to ascertain whether they had engaged in anal
intercourse; the results of these examinations were adduced as evidence at
hearings before the Supreme State Security Prosecutor on June 6 and 7. Both
Human Rights Watch and IGLHRC have condemned such examinations as a form of
cruel and inhuman treatment, "profoundly degrading and humiliating to
those forced to undergo them" (HRW and IGLHRC, Public Scandals: Sexual
Orientation and Criminal Law in Romania, p. 87).

Meanwhile, the tightly State-controlled media engaged in a campaign of
vilification against the imprisoned men. They were called
"Satanists" (an echo of a celebrated 1997 case, in which a group of
teenagers, arrested in part because they listened to heavy-metal music, were
accused of devil worship and subjected to prolonged detention and to
sensationalized media coverage). Some newspapers published the names,
workplaces, and even photographs of the accusedwith similarities of
language suggesting they had derived this information from official sources.

Egyptian law (Law No. 96 Concerning the Regulation of Journalists, Article
23) bars publishing details of an ongoing investigation or trial that might
influence its outcome. The 1998 Code of Ethics of the Egyptian Journalists
Association also states that "reporters should refrain from publishing
details of a criminal or civil investigation or trial with the aim of
influencing the course of proceedings"and that "a reporter is not
allowed to publish names or photos of defendants."

Despite such stipulations, the press campaign intensified. On May 13, the
daily paper Al Maasa alleged the defendants belonged to an organized group, of
religious heretics as well as foreign agents: "The accused persons
admitted to the police officers that they believe in . . . perverse ideas
which they brought from a perverse group in Europe whose members practice
deviant practices such as homosexual marriage, and believe that perverse
relationships between men are stronger than sexual relationships between men
and women. Their ideas stress the negation of revealed religions, which they
consider based on absurd and mythical beliefs." The group spread its
ideas "among youth groups in universities, high schools, and clubs."
The State Security Office had been tapping the telephones of members of
"the perverse group" for some time, Al Maasa reported.

On the same day, the State-owned daily Al Ahram also identified the
defendants as devil worshippers and cultists, who "tried to recruit new
members to their cult and called on them to go to swim in the Dead Sea in
Jordan to be blessed by its water." One of the group, Al Ahram stated,
had confessed to being "immersed in Judaism." Al Maasa on May 14
quoted Mohammed El Shahat, Professor of Islamic Law at Tanta University, as
urging that, with this "perversion" spreading, the highest possible
punishment should be imposed for the sake of deterrence. (Egypt, nonetheless,
does not apply Islamic shariah law.) On May 15, Al Maasa returned with the
"Latest on Satanists Case." By this time a "leader" of
the "group" had been identified: a man "who traveled to a
number of European countries as well as Israel, and is also a prominent member
of many international perverted organizations that are widespread in these
countries, and adopted their perverted ideas in practicing deviance, and
recruited a number of his friends to spread the organizations ideas in
Egypt."

The accusation of prostitution also worked to discredit the victims. When
Amnesty International later criticized the arrests, the tabloid Rose al
Youssef headlined its June 21 response, "Excuse me, this is prostitution,
not human rights!" It quoted one human rights activist as stating,
"This is a crime against human nature and against religious values."

Although the alleged torture, the incommunicado detention, and the
interference with legal representation raised fundamental issues of justice,
few Egyptian human rights organizations were willing to be associated with the
case. (The Hisham Mubarak Law Centre, which furnished legal support to some of
the defendants, was a notable exception.) The spectre of homosexuality and the
religious cast given the case discouraged intervention. Rose al Youssef quoted
one human rights lawyer who justified inaction by recalling the consequences
of NGO opposition to female genital mutilation: "We were subjected to
severe attacks and accused of promoting promiscuity." He added, "I
expect certain currents to make use of [this case] to press several
accusations against Egyptian human rights organizationssuch accusations as
allowing and promoting perversion." An official of the Egyptian Human
Rights Organization (EOHR) even declared his intention to write a book
demonstrating that homosexual rights are not human rights. Finally, on July
18, after more than two months detention, the men were arraigned at the
Abdin courthouse in downtown Cairo. Amid chaotic crowds, the handcuffed men
tried to cover their faces from reporters and photographers. Some spectators
berated the prisoners as "perverts"; families, whom guards had
attempted to clear from the courtroom, protested angrily outside, in a scene
almost unprecedented in Egypt, railing against both press coverage and State
repression. "Why have they done this to our youth?" one women cried
about her brother, one of the accused. "Even if he comes out not guilty,
they have tarnished his reputation forever."

The isolation of the men had prevented preparing a common defense. Four
were defended by a lawyer from the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, others only by
whatever legal representation their families had been able to find. Lawyers
were only informed officially of the details of the accusations as the hearing
began. According to Al Ahram, one lawyer stated, "The dossier of the case
includes 1000 pages. We had little time to study it and prepare our
defense."

All the men were charged under Article 9.c of Law No. 10/1961 on the Combat
of Prostitution. The law provides a sentence of three months to three years
imprisonment for "obscene behavior" as well as prostitution. Two of
the men were also charged under Article 98.f of the Penal Code, which
criminalizes "contempt for religion" and carries a sentence of six
months to five years. The court set a further hearing for August 15.

The right to freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in
its Article 5, and by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) in its Article 7. It is also protected by the United Nations
Convention against Torture (CAT).

Discrimination based on status is barred by the UDHR in its Articles 1 and
2, and by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its
Articles 2 and 26. These provisions do not expressly mention "sexual
orientation": however, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held in
the 1994 case Toonen v Australia that the ICCPRs anti-discrimination
provisions should be understood to include sexual orientation as a protected
status.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is protected by
both the UDHR and ICCPR in Article 18 of each.

The right to freedom of expression is protected by both the UDHR and ICCPR
in Article 19 of each.

The rights to freedoms of assembly and association are protected by the
UDHR in its Article 20, and by the ICCPR in its Articles 21 and 22.

The right to a fair trial is protected by numerous international
instruments, notably the ICCPR in its Article 14, which prescribes inter alia
that "All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals";
that all persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence; that all
persons have the right to counsel of their own choosing, and to "be tried
without undue delay"; and that "Everyone convicted of a crime shall
have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher
tribunal according to law."

The right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention is also protected
by numerous international instruments, including the UDHR and ICCPR in Article
9 of each. Article 9 of the ICCPR also affirms that persons in pre-trial
detention are "entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.
It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained
in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for
trial."

Egypt ratified the ICCPR in 1982 and acceded to the Convention Against
Torture in 1986. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered part
of customary international law, and binding on all member States of the United
Nations.

###

About IGLHRCThe mission of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
is to protect and advance the human rights of all people and communities
subject to discrimination or abuse on the basis of sexual orientation, gender
identity, or HIV status.